Re: [HEADS-UP] growfs port for ffs2 and ffs1

On Oct,Friday 29 2010, at 3:44 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Oct 28, 6:58pm, tls%panix.com@localhost (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] growfs port for ffs2 and ffs1
>
> | On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:13:29AM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> | >
> | > I have been testing growfs in a loop for some time now (ffs1, ffs2,
> | > wapbl) and everything works fine, I will commit this during weekend if
> | > there are no real objections.
> |
> | I object, and I consider my objection (which is the same as the objection
> | raised by a member of core!) to be real, even if you do not.
> |
> | > Existence of resize_ffs which was never included to build and can't resize
> | > ffs2 file system can't be considered as issue.
> |
> | I don't think it's correct to simply declare that others' objections
> | "can't be considered as issue". Resize_ffs is in our tree, it works, and it
> | can shrink filesystems, which the code you propose to commit cannot! I
> | do not think something that duplicates most of its functionality, adds one
> | new feature (support for ffs2) but omits another (shrinking filesystems)
> | should be committed.
>
> I also don't think it is too hard to make it work with ffsv2... It is just
> mechanical changes.
Are you going to do them, because otherwise it doesn't matter how hard it's it
will never be done last commit was done to resize_ffs in 2007!! and it was some
white space fix. No one cares about this tool and truly said it's not even used.
Regards
Adam.